Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests

Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be. The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions Both Olivia and JT65A contests were

Message 1 of 5
, Jan 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Of the 15 or so logs received so far, the comments appear to be.

The bands (40 and 20M) were in very poor conditions

Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity was
, according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .

Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).

Some folks mistook their local time for UTC time.

Several ZL's, VKs, and JA's on the JT65A contest

As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
The experimental contests take a lot of patience.

JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for conventional
contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).

Olivia should have been easier, I did see 4 QSO's taking place in
Olivia 500/8 at the same time on 40M, some die-hards stuck with 500/4
!

Andy K3UK

Joe Taylor

Hi Andy and all, ... At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME contests -- another mode that most people would consider tough . In

Message 2 of 5
, Jan 2, 2008

0 Attachment

Hi Andy and all,

Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:

> Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity was,
> according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
>
> Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
> are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
> signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
> ...
> As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
> The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
>
> JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for conventional
> contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
> with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).

At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME
contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".

In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour (which
is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users had
great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
working well over 100 stations.

JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases where CW
(or other, faster digimodes) will fail.

To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in which,
say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT

Joe Taylor

Hi Robert, I ll reply to the list, since it appears that your message was intended to go there. A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it s the

Message 3 of 5
, Jan 3, 2008

0 Attachment

Hi Robert,

I'll reply to the list, since it appears that your message was intended
to go there.

A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it's the same as
the usual limit for "QRP class" in other contests.

The important thing, in my opinion, is that an HF JT65 contest should be
a QRP (or QRPP) event. JT65 is supposed to be used with *weak* signals.

-- 73, Joe, K1JT

TF3TTY wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> Make it 5 watts, Because most radios has 5 watts minimum power when the knob
> is turned all the way down…
>
> Reading 1 watt on a meter is also not very good.
>
> 73’s robert tf3tty
>
> _____
>
> From: wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Joe Taylor
> Sent: 2. janúar 2008 14:35
> To: Andrew O'Brien; DIGITALRADIO; WSJT
> Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Comments on the JT65A and Olivia contests
>
> Hi Andy and all,
>
> Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:
>
>> Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough". Activity was,
>> according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
>>
>> Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up " (There
>> are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode several
>> signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
>> ...
>> As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was expected.
>> The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
>>
>> JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for conventional
>> contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
>> with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
>
> At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and EME
> contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".
>
> In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour (which
> is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users had
> great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
> working well over 100 stations.
>
> JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases where CW
> (or other, faster digimodes) will fail.
>
> To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in which,
> say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT

Dave hartzell

Yes, lets do it again QRP (1-5 watts)! I only had RX capability on Jan 1, but I saw WSJT activity with my ft-817 and a whip antenna! 73, Dave n0tgd

Message 4 of 5
, Jan 3, 2008

0 Attachment

Yes, lets do it again QRP (1-5 watts)!

I only had RX capability on Jan 1, but I saw WSJT activity with my
ft-817 and a whip antenna!

> A 5 W limit would be fine. It has the advantage that it's the same as
> the usual limit for "QRP class" in other contests.

agm54uk

Hi All Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can decode several signals at once, I have looked but could not find. This feature would

Message 5 of 5
, Jan 13, 2008

0 Attachment

Hi All

Where are the advanced features within WSJT (JT65A) where you can
decode several signals at once, I have looked but could not find.

This feature would be very useful If I could find it !!.

Andy
G8RZA

--- In wsjtgroup@yahoogroups.com, Joe Taylor <joe@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy and all,
>
> Andrew O'Brien (K3UK) wrote:
>
> > Both Olivia and JT65A contests were considered "tough".
Activity was,
> > according to early reports, higher in the JT65A mode .
> >
> > Several JT65A WSJT users had difficulty handing a "pile-up "
(There
> > are some advanced features within WSJT where you can decode
several
> > signals at once, but perhaps people do not know this).
> > ...
> > As for the comments that the contest was "tough", that was
expected.
> > The experimental contests take a lot of patience.
> >
> > JT65A as implemented in WSJT is not at all designed for
conventional
> > contesting. Today's results are helpful for analyzing how contests
> > with JT65A could be conducted in the future (if at all!).
>
> At the risk of stating the obvious: JT65 was designed for EME and
EME
> contests -- another mode that most people would consider "tough".
>
> In the EME contest world, a sustained QSO rate of 8-10 per hour
(which
> is possible with JT65) is very good. Somewhere around 200 users
had
> great fun with JT65 in the recent ARRL EME contest, in many cases
> working well over 100 stations.
>
> JT65 was intended for use with extremely weak signals -- cases
where CW
> (or other, faster digimodes) will fail.
>
> To me, the only interesting HF contest using JT65 would be one in
which,
> say, the maximum permitted power would be 1 Watt.
>
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.